6u §£6£$e>fe;6e<L 



Hollingjer 

pH 8 J 

Mill Run FD3-2193 



619 
IS35 




MADE IN 
AMERICA 



A Consideration of the Question Whether 
the United States, as a Neutral Nation, 
Should Export Arms and Ammu- 
nition to Nations at War. 



By George Seibel 



This pamphlet is sold at five cents a copy, fifty cents a dozen, 
or three dollars a hundred. Any profits from the publication 
will be given to the Red Cross and the Widows and Orphans in 
Germany, Austria, and Hungary. 



Trade supplied by F. C. Herget, 

618 Smithfield Street 

Pittsburgh, Pa. 

1915 



*|f^ONG have Ave resented the reproach, flung into 
J ^ our face by foreign critics, that our deity is 
the Almighty Dollar — that there is no sentiment too 
sacred to be sold and no principle that will not be 
abandoned for a price. Often have we asserted, in 
resolutions and proclamations, in spoken word and on 
the printed page, that this nation of ours would 
stand for a righteousness above mercenary motive, 
for an ethic purified from sordid impulse, for a new 
freedom aspiring to heights beyond commercial cal- 
culation and the morals of the marketplace. 

Now we have an opportunity to prove our fealty to 
those vaunted ideals. Now we can show the world 
the inspiring spectacle of a nation too proud to profit 
from the woe of any other, too generous to build her 
dominion upon the downfall of a rival, too just to 
judge and too honorable to impute dishonor to our 
brothers. 

The war in Europe has given us this opportunity. 
How are we availing ourselves of it? 

A great painter like Vereshchagin could paint for 
us a picture that would melt the stoniest heart. Look 
upon a vast cemetery, with tombstones and memorial 
crosses stretching out to the far gray horizon. Here 
;and there, against these milestones of death's march, 
'lean shattered remnants of humanity — men shot to 
pieces, men with one arm, men with no arms, men 
without legs, men blinded by picric acid and staring 
with hopeless eyes toward an empty heaven. And 
amid this throng of human wrecks, pitiful survivals 
of death's reign, behold countless women robed in 
black, widows of war, leading by the hand little chil- 
dren, orphans of war, that weep for fathers and 
brothers beneath the sod. And under that picture 
I should write its title — a title that tells the whole 
story — the words carved upon every one of those 



countless tombstones — the words thai are graven 
upon the crosses worn and borne by all those cripples 

the terrible words, "Made in America." 

.Millions of rifles are being made in America and 
shipped to Europe; thousands of tons of powder, 
dynamite, and deadly acids are transported to Eng- 
land, France, and Russia to destroy human lives. One 
newly invented explosive, Rochamboite, when ex- 
ploded in a shell, creates a heat of more than 2,500 
degrees and throws molten metal just as the bullets 
in a shrapnel shell are scattered. How proud we 
should be of this invention ! A Cleveland concern 
advertises a shrapnel machine which is "very 
special," making a shell whose "fragments become 
coated with two acids in exploding, and wounds 
caused by them mean death in terrible agony within 
four hours if not attended to immediately, as there 
seems to be no antidote that will counteract the 
poison." Torquemada and Alva would have found 
useful coadjutors in these American instigators of 
atrocities. Indeed, they make Nero and Caligula look 
like amateurs and mollycoddles! 

And wmat shall be said of the exportation of horses 
for use by the armies in the field? We have humane 
societies in every one of our large cities, ever on the 
alert to prevent cruelty to man's best friend. We 
have societies to oppose the practice of vivisection. 
Yet we are permitting thousands of horses to be ex- 
ported to the battlefields — there to be torn to pieces 
by shot and shell, in the heartless vivisection of 
horrid war. 

The moral problem involved is causing qualms to 
many of our citizens w T ho are not endowed with the 
convenient elasticity of conscience some manufactur- 
ers and politicians must possess. Two letters out of 
a number received in the office of the Pittsburgh 



"Volksblatt und Freiheits-Freund" will bring this 
home to any one with a heart. The first letter, from 
a workingman, is as follows : 
Dear Mr. Editor: — 

I write to ask your advice, as I do not know what to do. 
Fifteen years ago, I came to America from the old country. 
When I left home, I kissed my little brother good-bye, and 
thought that some day he would come to America, too. Eight 
years ago, I became a citizen of this country, and have come 
to love it like my old fatherland, even better. I was plan- 
ning to bring my brother over in last August, when the war 
broke out. Now here is the terrible thing I wish to ask you 
about. He is serving in the German army. "We, in the works 
here, are making shells for the English and the French. 
Every time I turn out one of the shells, I think that perhaps 
it may kill my own brother or make him a poor cripple for 
life. What shall I do? If I could get some other work, even 
digging in the street, I should be glad to take it. Can you 
help me to get anything? Do you think I ought to quit any- 
how? I lie awake at night and worry about this. 

Yours truly, 

To this letter the editor wrote the subjoined reply : 

Dear Sir: — 

The situation you describe is indeed terrible. However, for 
one man to quit his work will not stop the making of the 
shells. The guilt of blood, if blood is shed by the shells you 
make, does not fall upon your head, any more .than upon the 
tools you use. You are only a tool in the hands of the manu- 
facturers who earn the blood-soaked profits. You can do 
nothing as long as the United States government permits 
them to make money in this way. You must remember that 
the American conscience cannot be permitted to interfere 
with the American pocketbook. 

Yours very truly, 



Another communication came from an owner of 

some "war stocks," and shows a commendable but 

all too rare sense of individual responsibility. This 

writer said: 

Dear Editor: — 

A peculiar question has been causing me a good deal of 

concern lately. I am the owner of 200 shares of 

stock, which was doing only fairly well until after the out- 
break of the war. Then, as everybody knows, they secured 
a large amount of orders for shrapnel, etc. The stock has 
begun to boom, and has gone up almost three times what it 
was, so that dividends are sure and likely to increase. The 
matter is causing me perplexity, for I have a conscience and 



do not like to touch blood-money. Should I sell my stock.' 
[f I do, the extra amount I should receive for it would also 
lu- blood-money. Knowing your interest in practical moral 
<|iiest ions, I venture to ask what would you do? 
Yours sincerely, 



After some thought the following reply was sent : 

My Dear Friend: — 

Your scruples are such as would arise in the heart and 
head of any honest and humane man. But selling your stock 
would not stop the manufacture of shrapnel, would it? 
Therefore you might as well keep your stock. You cannot, 
however, it seems to me, conscientiously use the dividends 
received for purposes of your own. It is tainted money — 
money with the worst taint of all, the taint of blood and 
tears. Now the question arises what to do with this money? 
The existence of the German War Belief Fund supplies the 
solution. If I were receiving such dividends, I should turn 
them into the War Belief Fund. By so doing you derive no 
personal profit from the crime you cannot prevent, and you 
do all that lies in your power to help and to heal. You 
should also endeavor, if you have any influence with the man- 
agement of the concern, by protest and argument to show 
them that their acts are less excusable than those of nine 
out of ten murderers. You should also, if you have any in- 
fluence with our government, exert it to the utmost .to induce 
them to put a stop to this immoral and inhuman business. 
We pray for peace at the same time that we prey for profits! 
Mr. Bryan wants the Democratic Barty to advocate prohibi- 
tion of the liquor traffic; here is a form of prohibition which 
means a vast deal more to humanity, and means it now. 
Why go into a frenzy about the Demon Bum while you are 
feeding the Moloch War? These are trying times — they will 
test not only our neutrality as Americans, but our decency 
as members of the human race. It is a pity that so few 
people realize this, or that, if they do realize it, their voices 
are drowned in the jubilant chorus of greed and hate. 
Yours faithfully, 



Since the beginning of the present war practically 
all the neutral nations of Europe have placed 
embargoes upon the exportation of arms and other 
munitions. 

International law, it is true, permits the manufac- 
ture and export of arms and ammunition. Article 7 
of the Hague Convention of 1907, respecting the 
rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in 
case of war on land, says: 



A neutral power is not called upon to prevent the export or 
transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of 
arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can 
be of use to an army or a fleet. 

It will be noted, upon a careful reading of this 
paragraph, that it is essentially a saving clause; cer- 
tainly it does not command the export or transport 
of war materials ; it is merely a waiver of liability 
on the part of all nations for failing to prevent what 
they may not have the power to prevent, so to safe- 
guard themselves against claims for damages that 
might otherwise rest against them, as in the case of 
ships being fitted out in neutral ports, which can 
easily be prevented. 

The question is : Do we really wish to stop the war ? 
At President Wilson's behest we have assembled in 
our churches and have asked God to stop it. At the 
same time we have helped the warring nations to keep 
it up. It is like praying Providence to save a burn- 
ing house, while you pour oil and pile fuel on the 
flames. Such prayer is a hypocritical farce ! 

If we stopped sending rifles and shrapnel, this war 
would end in a month. If we do not stop sending 
them, we are responsible for the continuance of the 
slaughter, though we pray till our throats are hoarse 
and our trousers bag at the knees. 

The basest of all passions is greed. The man who 
commits murder in a fit of mad jealousy we may ex- 
cuse. The man who commits murder in a drunken 
rage we may pity. But the man who commits murder 
for a dollar, we must brand as a vile and contempt- 
ible criminal. We are aiding and abetting murder 
for mere dollars. The blood-soaked money we get 
from Europe will be an eternal blot upon our national 
honor. Judas did not love Jesus less, but thirty 
pieces of silver more. We extol peace, but we prefer 
cash! 



This is distinctly a moral issue Do aol tell me that 
international law docs not forbid the exporl of anus 
and ammunitions. International law is little more 
than a code of honor among thieves. What inter- 
tional law does not forbid, does not thereby become 
right. 

No law says that a grocer shall refuse to sell 
matches to an incendiary. A usurer is not prevented 
from lending money to a gambler. 

No law enjoins us to prevent a man from beating 
his wife, but if you lend him a club you are neither 
a saint nor a hero. 

No law bids us prevent a man from hanging him- 
self, but if you sell him the rope you are not entitled 
to a life-saving medal. 

The man who owns property used for immoral pur- 
poses might say: "I am not bound to prevent im- 
morality by my tenants." We consider him a most 
contemptible person if knowingly he enriches himself 
in this fashion. 

If we see two boys fighting in the street, we are 
under no legal obligation to stop them, but we should 
appear very petty if we could stop them and did not 
do it. If we not only declined to stop them, but 
offered to sell either one a knife, with which he could 
"rip up" the other fellow, we would be most con- 
temptible specimens of humanity — wouldn't we? 

There are a hundred things we can do under the 
law, and break no law in doing them, which never- 
theless, if we do them, and go to hell for it, we should 
be ashamed to look the Devil in the face. 

We should strive to be, as President Wilson rec- 
ommended in his neutrality proclamation : 

Neutral in fact as well as in name, and we must put a 
curb on every transaction which, might give a preference to 
one party in the struggle over another. 



But our late Secretary of State declared it would be 
"unneutral" to put an embargo on arms now, while 
the war is in progress. Suppose England consented 
to such an embargo, would he still consider it "un- 
neutral"? When he was preaching the gospel of 16 
to 1, he did not think we needed England's consent 
for any act we thought was right. If it is right, right 
now is the time to do it. A quarantine is declared 
while the disease rages. The only person who com- 
plains about locking the stable-door before the horse 
has been stolen is the horse-thief. 

Is our definition of neutrality justified? Perhaps 
the most significant comment yet made upon it is con- 
tained in an editorial of the London "Times," which 
censured Kitchener for the shortage of ammunition 
in the British army, and declared that this shortage 
was inexcusable in view of the "convenient" defini- 
tion of neutrality adopted by the United States. 
What should we say if we were accused of having a 
"convenient" interpretation of the Decalogue? The 
sneer contained in this single word, coming from a 
nation that we are benefiting, shows that we have 
earned, not their gratitude, but their contempt. The 
servile rogue who is ready to barter principle for coin, 
is never admired by those that use him in their 
dastardly work. Already we hear clamorous com- 
plaint from the Allies that our manufacturers of 
murder machines are cheating them. After this war 
is over, we shall have no friends in either camp. 

The contention of those good people and poor 
logicians who say we have no right to stop the ex- 
port of arms now, is that by so doing we would de- 
prive England of a legitimate advantage which she 
has gained through the possession of a superior navy. 
These people insist that we have no right to deprive 
a nation of any legitimate advantage it may possess. 



[f that be true, we have no right by exporting arms 
to deprive Germany of the legitimate advantage she 
possesses through her superior Krupp armament 
works. These people also say that to forbid the ex- 
port of arms is to put a premium on militarism. The 
answer is that to permit the export of arms is to com- 
pel every nation to build a navy as big as England's. 

The editor of the Outlook and ex-President Taft 
seem to think that if exports of arms were stopped, 
the United States should not be able to get them if 
we ever need them. If we ever do need them, where 
would we get them? If we were at war with Eng- 
land, could we get arms from Germany or from 
France? If at war with Japan, could we get them 
from Japan's ally, England? If England can not 
supply her own need now, could she supply ours 
then, even if she would? 

"What country, at war with England, could get 
arms and ammunition anywhere? What small coun- 
iry, at war with a stronger naval power, could get 
arms anywhere? Could the Boers? Forbid the ship- 
ment of arms and the capture of unarmed merchant 
vessels (both essentially acts of piracy), and we do 
away with the burden of vast naval armaments. We 
shall have a hard time doing it, for at present the 
manufacturers of murder machines and armor plate 
are a greater power, better organized and more un- 
scrupulous, than the slave-holders of the last century. 
Seven or eight resolutions paving the way for the 
abolition of the bloody traffic, were smothered in com- 
mittee during the last session of Congress. At whose 
behest? The American people should insist upon an 
answer to this question. Was it the President? Was 
it the manufacturers? Was it the agents of the 
Allies? Who killed those bills? 

An astute and vigorous press campaign is being 



carried on to forestall the embargo demanded, by the 
nation's enlightened conscience. Especially those 
New York papers that are closely affiliated with the 
big financial interests of Wall street and London — 
interests that are reaping enormous profits both 
from war loans and war contracts — these papers are 
employing every shady trick known to the journal- 
istic Mafia, in order to manufacture sentiment 
against Germany. Nearly every one now realizes 
that organized lying on a colossal scale has been prac- 
ticed — but few people understand why. The motive 
has been partly military and partly economic. There 
appear to be well-grounded fears that unless the 
American mind were kept inflamed against Germany, 
by the Bernhardi bugaboo, the "scrap-of -paper" in- 
nuendo, the sneer at "Kultur," the Kaiser myth, the 
phantom of militarism, and the atrocity fakes, Amer- 
ican sentiment might become aroused over America's 
guilty complicity in the wholesale murder going on 
in Europe. There is method in their mendacity. Busi- 
ness is business. Ananias does not wish to have his 
flourishing trade in murder-machinery disturbed. 
And as long as the American people can be kept in 
the belief that the German "barbarians" deserve to 
be murdered, their conscience will remain comatose 
and profits will reach high tide. They may offer 
purely academic prayers for peace, while they coin 
the blood of Europe into drachmas. 

While the dailies are thus engaged in administer- 
ing chloroform to the public conscience, weekly 
journals and monthly magazines afford little ground 
for better hopes. "The Christian Herald" is the only 
important publication that has denounced the un- 
christian business. The more influential among our 
journals and magazines circulate extensively in Eng- 
land; to enter upon any propaganda distasteful to 

10 



England would kill their English circulation and de- 
crease their advertising income; none of them circu- 
late in Germany to any extent, owing to the differ- 
ence in language ; therefore they have nothing to lose 
and much to gain by an anti-Teutonic attitude. Occa- 
sionally other influences tend to accentuate this ani- 
mosity. For example, "The World's Work" is pub- 
lished by Doubleday, Page & Co. Walter IT. Page, 
one of the principal owners, is our American ambas- 
sador at London. This may help us to understand 
why the June number of this publication, besides 
calling attention to the Kaiser's nefarious scheme to 
alienate hyphenated Americans by offering prizes at 
Saengerfests, also assures us editorially that Amer- 
ican munition manufacturers are supplying "less 
than one-twentieth of one per cent" of the Allies' 
needs. Is our share in the blood-stained traffic really 
so insignificant? Then there should not be so much 
desperate and determined opposition to the awaken- 
ing of the American conscience and the cessation .of 
our unimportant activity in furnishing Murderers' 
Supplies. 

The world has been horrified at the sinking of the 
Lusitania, and rash men have used intemperate lan- 
guage in denouncing Germany for the deed. But if 
it is true that the ship was itself a floating arsenal, 
that thousands of cases of ammunition and tons of 
explosive acids were stored in its hold, and if the 
torpedo was but the match that set off this mine, are 
we ourselves absolved from all guilt ? From our State 
Department, which I had apprised of certain ship- 
ments violating ideal neutrality and the sentiment of 
humanity, I received a communication stating that 
"it is the enemy's duty to prevent the articles reach- 
ing their destination." If Germany was but doing 
her duty, as outlined for her by our State Depart- 

11 



ment, why should jingo journals and incendiary poli 
ticians blame her so unsparingly? 

That this opinion is held by many of the best Amer- 
icans is shown by the utterances of men like Rich- 
mond Pearson Hobson and Senator John D. Works. 
The senator from California has deliberately de- 
clared that ' ' our own government has been grievously 
in the wrong in permitting the exportation of war 
materials to the belligerent nations, and especially 
in allowing passenger travel on a belligerent ship 
loaded with arms and munitions of war bound for the 
ports of one of the belligerent nations. We should 
take much of the responsibility for the loss of Amer- 
ican lives to ourselves." 

The message of President Wilson to Congress on 

August 27, 1913, on Mexican affairs, said : 

For the rest I deem it my duty to exercise the authority 
conferred upon me by the law of March 14, 1912, to see to 
it that neither side to the struggle now going on in Mexico 
receive any assistance from this side the border. I shall 
follow the best practice of nations in the matter of neutrality 
by forbidding the exportation of arms or munitions of war 
of any kind from the United States to any part of the 
Eepublic of Mexico — a policy suggested by several interest- 
ing precedents and certainly dictated by many manifest con- 
siderations of practical expediency. We cannot in the cir- 
cumstances be the partisans of either party to the contest 
that now distracts Mexico or constitute ourselves the virtual 
umpire between them. 

If to prohibit the supply of arms was "the best 
practice of nations" then, why is it not the best 
practice of nations now? If it was the best practice 
of nations in the western hemisphere, why not in the 
Old World? Is "the best practice of nations" like 
the weather, subject to modification by geography 
and the variable seasons? 

Moreover, it appears that the rescinding of the 
Mexican embargo by President Wilson on February 
3, 1915, was dictated by circumstances similar to 
those that make our shipments to Europe seem a vio- 

12 



lation of friendly neutrality. Under the American 
embargo Huerta, whom we opposed, could get arms 
and ammunition, while the rebels, whom we favored, 
could not. So, to equalize the conditions, President 
Wilson revoked the embargo. Why should our ac- 
tion in one case be guided by a desire to counter- 
balance geographical disadvantages in Mexico, and 
why decline to do so in Europe ? Is it because we love 
Pancho Villa more, or Kaiser Wilhelm less? 

They tell us, some of the benevolent apologists for 
the sale of murder machines, that by furnishing arms 
and munitions of war to the belligerents we are short- 
ening the war. What they really mean is that we 
are hastening the slaughter. What we are really 
doing is helping the unfit to survive. It is absurd to 
set up this plea based upon humanitarian cant. The 
people who use this argument are not neutral — they 
wish England and her Allies to win — and they think 
they are shortening the war for England. But there 
are two sides to the question : if they shorten the war 
for England, they lengthen it for Germany. Let us 
be perfectly neutral, and do what we can to end the 
war as soon as we can, irrespective of who wins. 

There are only two logical reasons that can be ad- 
vanced by the people who wish to see the manufac- 
ture and shipment of arms and ammunition continued. 
The first of tbese reasons is that we wish to see Ger- 
many defeated, and by furnishing the Allies with war 
materials we can bring this about. The second reason 
is that we want the money that can be made out of 
the traffic. Neither reason is good, viewed from the 
standpoint of true Americanism or human brother- 
hood. As a neutral nation, we should have no desire 
to help or to hurt either belligerent; the triumph of 
the one should not elate us, nor the humiliation of 
the other inspire us with any feeling but that of sym- 

13 



pathy and sorrow. So much for the first reason ; the 
second has even less palliation — it is the ethics of the 
hyena. 

Perhaps yon have heard a lecture on "The Prince 
of Peace," delivered in many cities by our Secretary 
of State. The Prince of Peace was born at Bethlehem 
in Judea — not Bethlehem in Pennsylvania — and at 
his birth the angelic host hovered overhead and 
sang: "Peace on earth, good will unto men!" There 
is no angelic host tonight above Bethlehem of Penn- 
sylvania; if anything, there is a horde of demons 
shrieking: "War on earth, and fat dividends to our 
stockholders." Let Americans adhere to the doc- 
trine proclaimed by the Prince of Peace, a doctrine 
applicable to this question, rather than to the mer- 
cenary doctrine now enunciated by the man who 
lectured on the Prince of Peace, but seems to have 
forgotten his rule: "Whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them." 

Andrew D. White, the American ambassador to 

Germany during the Spanish War, has told us in his 

autobiography (Volume 2, page 167) how Germany 

treated us in a similar crisis : 

As to the conduct of Germany during our war with Spain 
— the course of the Imperial (German) Government, especially 
of the foreign office, under the Count von Buelow and Baron 
von Eichthofen — was all that could be desired. Indeed, they 
went so far on one occasion as almost to alarm us. The 
American consul at Hamburg having notified me by telephone 
that a Spanish vessel supposed to be loaded* with arms for 
use against us in Cuba was about to leave that port, I 
hastened to the foreign office and urged that vigorous steps 
be taken, with the result that the vessel, which in the mean- 
time had left Hamburg, was overhauled and searched at the 
mouth of the Elbe. The German government might easily 
have pleaded in answer to my request that the American 
government had shown itself opposed to such interference 
with the shipment of small arms to belligerents and had con- 
tended that it was not expected to search vessels to find such 
contraband of war, but that this duty was incumbent upon 
the belligerent nation concerned. This evidence of the fair- 
ness of Germany I took pains to make known in my address 
at the American celebration in Leipsic on the Fourth of July. 

14 



If Mv. Bryan had a war on hand with Mexico, 
would he Like to have the Krupp works in Essen fur- 
nish cannons and shells to Carranza or Villa? Of 
course he would not — when there was prospect of 
trouble with Mexico, and a German ship was carry- 
ing a cargo of arms to the Mexicans, the United 
States took steps to stop the shipment, and Germany 
respected our wishes. 

Fifty years ago we had a great war, and England 
prolonged it several years by selling arms to the 
South. How did we interpret "Neutrality" then? 
Read some stanzas of a poem that appeared in 
"Harper's Weekly" in 1863: 

We will remember it — England's "neutrality," 

We who have witnessed her cowardly craft; 
Friendly in seeming, a foe in reality, 

Wiping her eyes while she inwardly laughed. 
We will remember with lasting emotion, 

When her starved workmen were gasping for breath, 
While stores of grain WE sent over the ocean, 

Her ships came laden with weapons of death! 
We will remember the Keokuk sinking, 

Riddled with balls "neutral England" had sent; 
We will remember her laughing and winking, 

Feasting arch-traitors on board of the Trent. 
We will remember it when we are stronger, 

When once again we stand saved and erect; 
Her neutral mask shall shield England no longer, 

By her foul deeds she'll know what to expect! 

That was how we felt toward England then for 
doing to us what we are doing to Germany now. 
What we do not wish others to do to us, we should 
not do to them. That is the Golden Rule, but up-to- 
date statesmanship seemingly believes in the Rule of 
Gold. Every honest industry in America languishes, 
while the War Demon waxes fat. Prices of foodstuffs 
are raised for our people, so that the armies of 
Europe may eat. We stand the full dinner-pail upon 
a bulging coffin! 

Our Socialist brethren are wiser and better when 
they cry: "Starve the war and feed America!" It 

15 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Mil 



020 914 127 9 | 

is time for some apostie of love and justice to tell the 
ghouls and vultures: "You shall not crucify human- 
ity upon a cross of gold! You shall not press upon 
the brow of peace this crown of thorns ! ' ' 

Let us put aside all hypocrisy, all dissimulation, 
all prejudice, all cupidity. Let us not merely preach 
about the blessing and beauty of peace, but translate 
our preaching into practice. Let us show the world 
that we are not money-mad Pharisees, but that we 
are willing to forego a purely material advantage for 
the greater good of humanity. Bismarck once said 
that the Balkans were not worth the bones of one 
Pomeranian grenadier; the German crown prince has 
characterized this war as the most futile and foolish 
conflict in all history. Well-informed men think that 
we could stop it. Let us try! Let us proclaim a 
higher neutrality — the higher neutrality expressed, in 
Thomas Jefferson's words, "by every act of justice 
and of innocent kindness" — a neutrality that does 
not look for loopholes in the law of nations through 
which to favor one belligerent at the expense of an- 
other and to our personal profit. Thus in reverence 
to Germany's lofty idealism, to France's humani- 
tarian dreams, to England's basic democracy, to 
Austria's heroic service at the outpost of Europe, to 
Hungary's vision of liberty and Russia's dawn of 
glorious hope, let us stand forth as the friend of all, 
the foe of none, ready to help and to heal, refusing 
to harm and to hate, exercising not the charity that 
"believeth all things" but that which "thinketh no 
evil," asking naught for ourselves, but in the name 
of humanity bidding the tempest of war to cease, the 
battle-flags to be furled, and reason to return to men 
made drunk with the red wine of death. President 
Wilson and the Congress can do this. Will it be 
done? 

16 



T - r V "* F f^ 



/ 



£>u &Z6&6eJ*e;6ei 



mi ii i mm in nun mill 
020 914 127 9 



Hollingcr 

pH 83 

MU1 Run FD3-2193 



